The Des Moines Register reported the 72-year-old Harkin made his comments on the Iowa delegations breakfast this morning in Charlotte, N.C.

Weve got our work cut out for us this week, folks, following the Republican convention, Harkin told the delegates. I mean, how are we ever going to match Clint Eastwood? I got to thinking he is the perfect icon for todays Republican tea party: an old angry white man spewing incoherent nonsense.

Eastwood delivered a puzzling and polarizing unscripted address at the Republican National Convention last week in Tampa, endorsing GOP nominee Mitt Romney while espousing positions contrary to Romneys stance, and yelling at an empty chair that an imaginary President Barack Obama was sitting in....

Harkin told the delegates. I mean, how are we ever going to match Clint Eastwood? I got to thinking he is the perfect icon for todays Republican tea party: an old angry white man spewing incoherent nonsense.

And what was Andy Griffith's rant during the 2008 scampaign, Tom?

5
posted on 09/04/2012 9:47:51 PM PDT
by a fool in paradise
(Only Obama put a dog on the roof of his mouth. Dogs are friends, not food.)

“Eastwood delivered a puzzling and polarizing unscripted address at the Republican National Convention last week in Tampa, endorsing GOP nominee Mitt Romney while espousing positions contrary to Romneys stance, and yelling at an empty chair that an imaginary President Barack Obama was sitting in....”

An angry, old white guy is complaining about an even-tempered, old white guy. I very much appreciated Clint’s gentle and affable delivery. I was watching a videotaped interview today from the current convention, and all I could hear in the background was berserk screeching.

We see who holds office for decades and wonder how they get sensible people to vote for them. It’s been going on for a long time. Remember, Jimmy Carter was loathed as a failure but still got something like 46% of the popular vote. Almost half the people in America voted for the imbecile.

And communications and technology makes it so much easier for voters today to be informed. Yet it’s gotten worse. Because along with the technology there is also much more brain drain on people. obama still has around 50% of the people in this country willing to vote for him. Look at the people in the audience. They’re brain dead zombies. I know one who was livid about Sotomayor but still loves obama and believes with all his heart that GM has paid off the loan. These are the retards who for retards.

We see who holds office for decades and wonder how they get sensible people to vote for them. It’s been going on for a long time. Remember, Jimmy Carter was loathed as a failure but still got something like 46% of the popular vote. Almost half the people in America voted for the imbecile.

And communications and technology makes it so much easier for voters today to be informed. Yet it’s gotten worse. Because along with the technology there is also much more brain drain on people. obama still has around 50% of the people in this country willing to vote for him. Look at the people in the audience. They’re brain dead zombies. I know one who was livid about Sotomayor but still loves obama and believes with all his heart that GM has paid off the loan. These are the retards who for retards.

That’s funny because Tommy soudned liek an angry white guy saying that- peopel with character defects usually accuse others of the very defect they are guilty of- it’s liek hte bible verse that says not to point out a splinter in someone else’s eye when you’ve go a plank in your own eye- but alas- the left keeps falselesly accusign hte right of the very thigns the left themselvesw truly are guilty of- they are like little children really- who can’t win arguments based o ntheir record, so the only hting they have left is to falsely attack the opposition’s character

[[We see who holds office for decades and wonder how they get sensible people to vote for them.]]

They get people to vote for them by promising (and then never delivering on) a lot of free stuff- even Mr’s Whiny O tonight was promissing everyoen a ‘fair chance’ meaning of cvourse takign ferom the rich and giving the lazy free stuff- and sadly this country may once again fall for the l;ies- not havign learned i nthe last 4 years that they were duped-

The polls should be showing whiny o so far behind that the left is left scratchign their mind-deficient heads wonderign why thery couldn’t keep the office- but nope- whiny o is still in a tie with romney- this country is almost beyond hope- and if whiny o gets in again - I’ll have lost aLL FAITH IN AMERICA’S ABILITY TO DO THE RIGHT THING aNYMORE

U.S. Senator from Iowa since 1984
Supported Sandinista dictatorship in Nicaragua
Allied with the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)
Lied about his own Vietnam War-era military service

In 1969 Harkin began work in the office of longtime Iowa Democratic Congressman Neal Smith. To supplement his income, Harkin was given a patronage job at the U.S. Post Office Department. As a staff aide to the House Select Committee on United States Involvement in Southeast Asia, Harkin accompanied a fact-finding mission to South Vietnam in 1970. As part of this mission, during a 30-minute visit to Con Son Prison he snapped photographs of Communist prisoners in tiger cages.

When the mission returned, Harkin declared that these photographs were too important to be turned over to Congress and to the House Select Committee. Instead he sold the photos, some to anti-American foreign outlets, and others to Life Magazine for $10,000. (Harkin used the money to pay off his debts for his 1972 law degree from Catholic University.)

The tiger cages story in Life and throughout the anti-war press turned Harkin into an instant star of the left, including the establishment U.S. media. Harkin gave an interview to the Daily World, official newspaper of the Communist Party USA, in which he made sweeping attacks on the treatment of prisoners throughout South Vietnam. His statements were exploited in Communist propaganda worldwide against the South Vietnamese government and the United States.

Harkin was befriended by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), a Marxist-oriented think tank in Washington, DC, and by other leftist institutions and activists that continue to support his career. In 1972 these groups persuaded Harkin to run for Congress in a race that showcased Harkins combative style. During one of his Republican opponents speeches, Harkin forced his way onto the stage and shouted that the incumbent congressman was telling a pack of lies. In the November election the young anti-war Harkin lost, swept away in the 49-state landslide against 1972 Democratic standard-bearer Senator George McGovern.

When Harkin ran for Congress again in 1974, the tide had turned and helped him to become one of many Democratic Watergate babies that this scandal swept into office. The first act of the congressional class of Watergate was to cut off all aid to the Cambodian and South Vietnamese regimes (American troops had been pulled two years previously). Four months later the regimes fell and the Communists proceeded to slaughter two and half million Indo-Chinese who stood in the way of their Communist utopia.

Harkin served in the House of Representatives for 10 years. During his 1982 re-election campaign, his opponent documented that Harkin had always voted against foreign aid for countries friendly to the U.S., but in favor of aid packages to Communist Vietnam, Communist Cuba, Communist Pol Pots Cambodia, Marxist Sandinista Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, and other Communist nations. When this subject was raised in a broadcast debate, Harkin replied: From now on, I am going to vote against all foreign aid.

In 1984 Harkin won an Iowa U.S. Senate seat by falsely claiming that his pro-life, pro-death penalty Republican opponent favored the execution of women who had undergone abortions. (Harkin is a Roman Catholic who voted against a ban on partial-birth abortions.)

As a newly-elected Senator, in April 1985 Harkin and fellow neophyte Senator John F. Kerry (D-Massachusetts) flew to Nicaragua (on a trip arranged by Institute for Policy Studies staff member Peter Kornbluh) to give propaganda support to its Marxist rulers only days before a scheduled congressional vote on President Ronald Reagans requested aid for Nicaraguas anti-Communist freedom fighters. After embracing Daniel Ortega in front of news cameras, Harkin and Kerry flew back to Washington with a document signed by Ortega in which the latter claimed to be non-aligned between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. (But years earlier Ortegas brother Humberto had declared: We [Sandinistas] are anti-Yankee, we are against the bourgeoisie we are guided by the scientific doctrine of the revolution, by Marxism-Leninism. Humberto Ortega also had said that the Sandinistas intended to crush all who dissented from their rule.)

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, lobbied by Harkin and Kerry, voted against giving aid (as requested by President Reagan) to the anti-Communist Contras. According to some accounts, Harkin and Kerry had been told privately in Nicaragua, but had kept secret from fellow Democrat lawmakers, that at the very moment the vote against President Reagans request was taking place, Daniel Ortega was aboard a Soviet airliner flying to Moscow to pledge his allegiance to the Soviet Union.

Critics claimed that Harkin and Kerry (in their aforementioned meeting with Ortega) had violated the Constitution by negotiating a treaty directly with a foreign nation — a power exclusive to the Executive, not the Legislative, branch of government. ), and that the two Senators were cavorting with, and used by, the Communists. Kerry said that he was as mad as anyone that the Sandinista leader he and Harkin had embraced days earlier had gone to Moscow.

These guys must hate themselves or something, because he too is an old white guy. I suppose he thinks he’s not angry. I can’t respect a man that degrades his own skin to look better among his political ‘peers’.

35
posted on 09/05/2012 1:43:16 AM PDT
by Rick_Michael
(2012 isn't the lesser of two evils, it's suicide vs a slap in the face. Do you want to wake up?)

The biggest lie was that Eastwood’s speech was incoherent. Incoherent would mean the audience was unable to understand what Eastwood was saying. The audience understood very well except for the few blue portions of his speech that had to be explained to some people. Other than that, I think everyone understood what Clint was saying.

All of the Anderson votes were taken from Carter. That means he WOULD have gotten 47% of the vote had Anderson not run. I remember those times well. And it still befuddles me when I think about how many votes the socialists got. 41% WITHOUT Anderson blows my mind.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.